[Dan Kelly]

In the thread about the 18th hole at the Redstone course outside Houston, Brad Klein writes: "18th at Redstone doglegs right and fairway cants right to left; if this were a race track turn, all cars would be flying out out of control and crashing. That's why the principle - reverse camber - never works in golf, just as it would never work (or even be tried) on a race track."

Later in that thread, he elaborates: "As for reverse cambers, I've seen way too many of them and they just don't work for average golfers. Does it make for a demanding sets of shots for great players? Sure: Olympic-Lakeside has about 10 of them."

The topic I offer for discussion is:

Must a hole  "work" for the "average player" to be a good or great golf hole?

How many of the holes you consider great "work" for the "average player"?

[Mike Hendren]

As an increasingly average player, I'm not sure the hole has to "work" for me, but it should be "negotiable."  

For example, the player who can work the ball into the reverse camber fairway deserves to be rewarded.  I don't mind a half stroke penalty because I can't.  I don't, however, want to be reaching in my pocket for another ball and hitting three from an awkward lie, as Daly was required to do at the 18th Sunday.  

I don't mind being penalized.  I only ask that the architect not add insult to injury.  

Mike
Toast

[Tom_Doak]

Pete Dye told me to avoid reverse camber holes, too.  He said the golfer's instinct was to play along the high road to the hole, and if the high road is rough, it's very awkward.  But every once in a while I see one that works pretty well.

Crystal Downs has two in a row ... the fourth and fifth holes.  The fourth works because there are bunkers low in the corner to hit over, and a big wooded hillside to the right of them so you can't play the high side.

But the answer to the general question is that I think a hole does have to work well for the average player, as long as he is only trying to make a bogey on it.  (I know this is a famous Trent Jones quote, and I don't buy it the way he said it, but there is some truth within.)  Sure, the Road Hole is an impossible four for the average golfer, but it's very possible to win the hole by playing conservatively if your opponent gambles too much ... that's a great hole.  It's not a good hole if the conservative play kicks your ball into deep rough under trees.

[Brent Hutto]

I think there are at least two dimensions of "average golfer", short hitting and lack of ability to control the distance/direction/trajectory of the ball. Depending on the particular "average golfer", only one or the other may apply.

For a golfer who hits the ball 210-225 yards off the tee and can't advance it more than 200 from the fairway there are two kinds of great holes. I suspect the majority of great holes maintain their nature even when played from suitably shorter tees. I think of the seventeenth of the Ocean Course at Kiawah. It's pretty much the same challenge from 140 yards (where I played it) for a short hitter as from 190 yards on the way-back tees for someone who hits it as long as Fred Funk. Conversely, there may be great holes on which the angle available from the back tees just can't be played from 30, 40 or 50 yards closer. Or another instance would be any great Par 4/5 hole that happens to have the last 180 yards to the green as a forced carry just isn't so great to someone who hits their 3-wood 180 yards at best.

For a longer-hitting average golfer whose handicap comes from a poor short game and uncertain direction and trajectory of full shots I think most great holes will hold up. Yes, something with a severe reverse camber to the fairway can be very penal if it's a dogleg left/tilted right setup and you're a righty slicer. But unless the penalty for being right is a full shot or more the hole retains its character even if you aren't likely to hit the shot required to make par.

[Sean_A]

I have never been a fan of the reverse dogleg, but there are some good examples of this type of hole.  Usually, this design concept is a bit over the top.  In the UK reverse doglegs are usually nigh on impossible to play properly because of the severity of slope.  Mind you, I have played some which have no trouble on the outside line.  Can't see the point in that.

Ciao

Sean

[A.G._Crockett]

Dan,
I would say it is a matter of degree.  If, for instance, a reverse camber fairway allows for a relatively straight, well-struck shot to be in play, but rewards a specific shape, then it is fine for the average player, though a lot of these on one course wouldn't be too much fun.  

However, I get the feeling that Brad Klein is writing about reverse cambers that demand that ONLY a slice or hook be hit, and a straight ball runs through the fairway.  That extreme version does not work for the average player.  As always, it's all about options.

[texsport]

I think that a great hole for all classes of golfers should offer options for players of different abilities-a high risk/ high reward option(birdie or eagle possibility) and a safer/low risk option(par or bogie probability)

I'll offer 2 examples off the top of my head:

#13 Augusta National
#13 The Quarry@Giants Ridge

[Tags:]

Tags:

[Tags:]

Tags:

Call to undefined function theme_linktree()